London Banter - View Single Post - Institutionalised law-breaking using bikes

Jon Senior · October 21st 04, 11:35 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.rec.cycling

Silas Denyer opined the following...
Actually I admitted that the data from which I extrapolated was
flawed. The figures in 3. and 4. are absolutes, not extrapolations. I
have not seen any cogent argument that any of the following figures
are inaccurate:

"I'm sorry, but on my (admittedly flawed) analysis of the available
data". Looks a little like an admission of guilt to me! ;-)

a) the total number of pedestrians killed by vehicles of all kinds
b) the total number of pedestrians killed by bicycles
c) the total number of pedestrians killed by cars crossing lights at
red

These data are sound.

In fact what I have been arguing for is the policing of cyclists.

And what we are saying is not that cyclists shouldn't be policed, but
that in a situation of limited resources (Which we _do_ have), efforts
should be concentrated at the source of greatest threat.

Cycles running red lights unpenalised are a manifestation of a failure
to police.

As is anyone committing theft, or murder, or speeding, or running a red
light in any vehicle. To single out cyclists shows a narrow mind or
someone shouldering a particularly heavy chip. Perhaps you could explain
your justification for this...

They do, however, show that you are as likely to be killed by any
particular bike as by any particular car running a red light, which is
still statistically significant!

.... and there it is. So in summary (Assuming that the data and analysis
are correct - I seem to recall seeing something about this earlier):

The risk to life caused by a cyclist at any time is approximately
equivalent to the risk to life caused by a driver jumping a red? Yet the
risk to life caused by a driver driving, is at least 300 times that
level (Hard to say, the set of killer cyclists is not really large
enough for realistic extrapolation!). So obviously it makes sense to be
afraid of cyclists... er... because... er... No. I really don't see it.

If I said that eating crayfish was as likely to kill you as a car
running a red light, the public would see that as a significant risk
(rightly or wrongly).

This is the same public who won't let their children outdoors for fear
of them being preyed up by paedophiles (Or paediatricians in the case of
Daily Sport readers!) despite their potential assailant being more
likely to be an immediate relative. I think "wrongly" is the correct
term here.

The fact that the killer crayfish wasn't running
a red light at the time would be irrelevant, as the point about the
relative scale of the risks would still have been made.

So of equal relevance then is the demonstration of relative risks of
being killed by a car running a red light, and being killed by a car
(Oddly enough, the same relative risk of cyclist:driver third party kill
ratios). But you neglected to mention (Or possibly notice) this.

So a quick recap.

In an ideal world, all crimes would be treated equally and with full
accord. In a less than ideal world, some level of prioritisation must
take place. In this less than ideal world, that level is set by risk to
human life. The police arrive faster at an RTA than at a burglary. And
faster to a burglary in progress than one that has already occurred. And
they clamp down much more on driving crime than cycling crime. It all
sort of makes sense really... doesn't it?

Jon